Ten Saudis seek asylum after princess is allowed to stay
Chairman of home affairs committee welcomes decision to give sanctuary to woman with illegitimate child
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Ministers are considering asylum applications for 10 Saudi Arabian nationals who claim they are at risk of persecution if they are forced to return to the Middle Eastern kingdom, it emerged last night.
The new cases were made public after The Independent revealed the plight of a Saudi princess who was granted asylum in Britain after she had an illegitimate child with a British man.
The young woman, who has also been granted anonymity by the courts, won her claim for asylum after she told a court that she faced execution if her husband found out about her adultery and she was forced to return to Saudi Arabia.
Immigration and asylum experts said last night that asylum cases from women fleeing the kingdom were very rare. But Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said of the case: "This is the kind of person that our asylum laws are designed to protect. A woman and her unborn child should under no circumstances be sent back to a country where it is likely that they will be harmed. I welcome the decision made in this case."
New figures released by the Home Office also showed that a further 15 Saudis were refused asylum by the Government last year. There are no details about the sex of each of the applicants nor for the number of asylum applications received this year.
Mr Vaz called for more information to be made public about claims from Saudi Arabia. He said: "This is a country with a questionable human rights record. It is important to make clear the number of people who are fleeing similar treatment."
The princess's case is one of a small number of claims for asylum brought by citizens of Saudi Arabia which are not openly acknowledged by either government. British diplomats believe that to do so would in effect highlight the persecution of women in Saudi Arabia, which would be viewed as open criticism of the House of Saud and lead to embarrassing publicity for both governments.
The woman, who comes from a very wealthy Saudi family, says she met her English boyfriend – who is not a Muslim – during a visit to London. They struck up a relationship after he gave her his telephone number in a department store. She became pregnant the following year and worried that her elderly husband – a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia – had become suspicious of her behaviour, she persuaded him to let her visit the UK again to give birth in secret. She feared for her life if she returned to Saudi Arabia.
She persuaded the court that if she returned to the kingdom she would be subject to capital punishment under Sharia law – specifically flogging and stoning to death. She was also worried about the possibility of an honour killing. Since she fled Saudi Arabia, her family and her husband's family have broken off contact with her.
The woman has been granted permanent leave to remain in the UK after the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal allowed her appeal. Keith Best, of the Immigration Advisory Service, said that Saudi nationals who were in genuine fear of persecution had the right to claim asylum in the United Kingdom. He explained: "They may also be able to claim if they were subjected to degrading and inhumane treatment. I can see why these cases can be difficult for Britain when one considers the relationship with the Saudi royal family and the many military contracts."
One case already refused by the Home Office is that of Yahya Al Faifi who claims he was persecuted in Saudi Arabia for conducting trade union activities, where trade unions are illegal. He and his family fled to the UK before 2006. In 2004, Al Faifi organised a trade union in BAE Systems after the company announced it was cutting pay by 40 per cent. More than 500 workers turned up to the first union meeting. But Mr Al Faifi and two others were sacked by BAE Systems. For several months afterwards Mr Yahya, whose case has been taken up by the RMT in the UK, continued to campaign for workers' rights leading to his case being given considerable media coverage.
However, when he refused to give up, he received repeated threats and was told that if he didn't leave the country immediately "the safety of his family could not be guaranteed". He left Saudi Arabia with his family to seek sanctuary in the UK. But after his case was refused he now faces deportation.
Saudi women: Victims of oppression
*Women are not allowed to drive or ride bicycles on public roads in large cities. But they are allowed to fly aircraft, though they must be chauffeured to the airport.
In September last year, women's rights activists petitioned the King to allow women to drive all vehicles. There were also calls for Saudi Arabian women to be allowed to compete in international sporting events along with their male counterparts. According to Amnesty International discrimination has fuelled violence against women, with foreign domestic workers particularly at risk of abuses such as beatings, rape and even murder, and non-payment of wages. Concerns have been raised that discriminatory laws relating to marriage mean women are trapped in violent and abusive relationships from which they have no legal recourse.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
And before someone pulls the racist card designed to silence critics, intimidate opponente, aid compensation and resist prosecution, It is not racist to love your country,
THIS MUST SURLY QUALIFY ME TO BE BRITISH AND SEEK ASYLUM !!!
Wake up you dozy lot of MPs, GIVE BRITAIN BACK TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE BEFORE WE ALL BECOME ASYLUM SEEKERS ELSEWARE.
Failure is when you go to the cricket ground and forget the bat; it is when you go to the swimming pool for a dip in winter. It is not doing your homework well and get the can from the teacher. It is when you eat, put your hand in the wallet to find you are short of few coins and end up washing dishes of few customers. It is sad and bad. It is embarrassing and goes a lot in the history. Ask Hitler he will tell you. Ask Maggie and Tony Blaire, Bush and Colin Powel (who now says we never wanted to go there), ask Dr. Bernanke who is going out as the pressure mounts. It is not hereditary. You acquire this stupidly from the hearsay.
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
The US and Swiss governments Sunday called for the postponement of a court showdown seeking to force ???? UK USA GET THE SAME FROM SWISS RE SAFETY OF THE ACCOUNTS ?? CASH IS THE KING
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Labour in its irredeemably dishonest and evasive manner has simply ducked the issue of asylum reform, preferring to sit and watch as the a tide has turned to a tsunami of asylum applications. Labour's boys and s are all feeding at the trough and none want to risk losing their snouts place by questioning the system.
This case is the very definition of one where asylum should quite rightly be provided- I can think of no better example of such a clear-cut instance where granting asylum is not only advisable, but actually the only reasonable course of action.
You claim the asylum system is 'absurd', yet entirely fail to point out where the absurdity lies. Each asylum case is judged on its merits: surely that is the only common-sense approach to take? Presumably you're not arguing the fact that this woman's life would indeed be in danger if she returned back to the clutches of the grotesque Saudi regime? If this is the case, I fail to see how you can then claim that granting asylum is the wrong decision. Surely you're not one of those who subscribe to the BNP's half-witted approach to immigration, are you?
A far more sensible system would be regional zones of asylum around the world. This would stop the economic abuse. This Saudi princess may have thought twice about just how untenable her situation was in Saudi Arabia if she new that seeking asylum meant Jordan or Egypt, or Lebanon. I'll wager her choice of Britain has a lot to do with shopping at Selfridges. But if her life really was in danger then why not Jordan?
What is absurd is your bogus claim that all asylum applications are judged on their own merits. Where have you been?? The authorities are so overwhelmed most cases don't even get heard until the applicant has been here so long they claim a passport due to length of residency or marriage, or more likely simply disappear. The asylum system is in breaking at the seams, is in chaos, or hadn't you heard?
Surely you're not one of those who cowards who cower before abusive Left wing activists, refusing to even discuss asylum and immigration for fear of abuse from these aggressive half wits, are you?
act (passed in the wake of WWII to deal with political refugees from behind the Iron Curtain)
"...if her life really was in danger then why not Jordan?"
If you had read the article rather than skipping straight to the comments section you would have noticed that her boyfriend (with whom she has had the baby) is British, which actually explains it pretty well, don't you think?
I find it rather odd that on the one hand you're arguing that our current system is fundamentally flawed because asylum seeker's cases are not investigated efficiently enough, whilst on the other hand making wild, unsubstantiated accusations about a woman who has been granted asylum and whose case has actually been reviewed by immigration officials. Surely your reformist zeal is not driven by good, old-fashioned xenophobia?
I'll believe it if she's still with him in a year, but granted on the face of it she has far more grounds for asylum in the UK than most. However my original comments related primarily to the 10 Saudis which have apparently claimed asylum in Britain since learning of her sucessful bid, and to the wider picture. You may also notice a guy (chandrareshar) asking on this very forum if the princesses case means there's a loophole that can be exploited. Word gets around and when it comes to asylum Britain has what can be called "unlimited liability" without any control over demand. It's an unsustainable system and something has to give. Through reasons of langauge, empire, and starry eyed misconceptions the UK is the number one destination for hundreds of millions of people seeking a better life.
You can not simply devorce the political asylum system from international economic migration as though they are separate issues since most economic migrants opt to use the former as their best bet of achieving the latter. Again witness chandrareshar's comment. Hence my call for regional zones of asylum around the world to distill the genuine political refugee from the economic chancers. You may call that xenophobia I call it good management and planning, something Britain's chaotic border, asylum and immigration system sorely needs after 12 years of Labour incompetence.
Why not they go back to their country at the first hand and freeze black money?? Lot of political leader have self exile life enjoying luxurious life with corrupted money investing in real estate and other business. Neither they are sincere with their own country nor with UK. Is there any Britisher took the black money and migrated to other country?? We have seen the MP cases of cash expenses. B Madoff an other example 150 years in jail. Why the UK govt encourage such peoples although they have criminal history in their country go and fact the charges. AS YOU SOW SO HALL YOU REAP.
UK is the welfare state for the right persons who work and live there not for the murderers, rapists, paedophiles, thieves, Islamic terrorists and many more peoples who are earning a bad name for the British society. Send them back at once.
There are hard workers paying taxes, without claiming benefits, law abiding, honest are waiting last 8 years to change their status. Solicitors are the gold mine to fight their cases. It is responsibilities of Govt to provide them better chance who are contributing in the national revenue. Provide them job card for certain periods. All jobs are not for the Britishers. Multi nationals are working there and supporting their families. Some bad elements are earning bad reputation for UK so discourage such elements and send them back. But British history is full of such spies or paper tigers.
However, it seems inevitable that some parts of the British population will always see newcomers to this island as the prime source of its woes. Even when those newcomers bring much needed cash, jobs and work ethic that enable this nation to function. We are not in our present financial mess because of asylum seekers or immigrants. It is because of unsustainable fiscal policy coupled with over-reliance and mass abuse of on an enfeebled social welfare system and systematic dismantling of our manufacturing and production capabilities.
We may be a small nation, but that does not stop us spending money on weapons many multiples more than nations much bigger than us. Of course having such a war capability makes it easy for us to become warlike. And we are presently embroiled in two escapades that only served to weaken our military and make our domestic security less so. That is the crime here. That is what we should tackle. People who led us into these situations and are responsible for the loss of life on such a massive scale should be brought to justice. But, alas, the British public would rather rant on about a single asylum seeker than fix the massive haemorrhaging of hard earned resources that is a daily reality in Westminster. The government should indeed be criticised, but for the right issues.
The problem in the UK is that it has gained a justly deserved international reputation as being the soft touch of Europe. Not so much the EU's soft underbelly as its soft in the head part. No other country and certainly not the Swedes would allow the wholesale and systematic abuse of its borders and welfare system as the UK does.
Britain of course is not big and empty, it is tiny and overcrowded, and getting more so by the day. Am I the only one who remembers that Tony Blair's first announcement on entering Downing St in May 2007 was that his govt intended to put "quality of life issues" at the top of its agenda. Since then Labour's tidal wave of massive unchecked and unregulated immigration has sent quality of life spiraling downwards in Britain for everyone. Massive immigration wasn't mentioned in Labour's 2007 manifesto, and the govt never had a mandate for it.
And when is Keith Vaz going to face the music about his shady dealings, the fact that such a man is a chairman of a commons committee just shows we have a very long way to go in cleaning up politics in this country. Maybe the swine flu will do it for us because one thing's for sure we can't rely on these MPs to do anything for the good of this country.
My colleague is a devout Muslim and assures me that under no circumstances is it okay to take a human life, the same as in Christianity.
The rights of men and women overall in Saudi are VERY different my friend, having lived there, I should know.
I see no anti Islamic propaganda here, in fact I am shocked and appalled by the majority of views on display here. Britain is one of the richest nations in the world, compared to other countries we have so much. What about compassion and consideration for your fellow man? If you do not think that assylum seekers should be allowed to come to UK what are you doing to help them in their own countries? Or is it not your problem? Are Global Issues such as Fairtrade, child poverty and slavery, war, world economic stability none of your concern? There is a misconception that assylum seekers can easily obtain benefits, housing etc, in fact it's very difficult for them. Without assylum people will be open to trafficking which is already huge, that includes children.
There have been mass migrations through time immemorial, how do you think people got to the UK and Europe in the first instance? And we all survived, we made it this far. Who are you to say that people shouldn't be allowed to come to this country? What gives you that right? Or are you really that arrogant, selfish and that full of greed to think that we have no room?
Furthermore, I don't think it anybody's business to try to influence these laws in their countries. I don't remember that saudi arabia was trying to influence barbarian laws of the UK when the church used to hang people in the streets. Do you know that there was an english law that permits executing a student by the dean if he was caught cheating in exam?
I agree with your comments.
Also, the punishment for adultry when married are involved is death by stoning. However, for un-married people its lashes and banishment for their current town - so significantly lesser punishment.
No room! Now there's a thought..., Mr g1les I really do hope you're writing from London and a frequent travellor on the underground as if you're not, and simply pontificating from some quaint English market town in middle England, some people might accuse you of being a hypocrite.
I'm full of respect for the "bring em all over, the more the merrier" brigade just as long as they're living in central London, preferably Hackney, sending their kids to the local school and seeking medical assistance in the local hospital etc, etc. People should always live by what they preach, unlike Labour MPs don't you agree?
This corrupt Parliament should be dissolved and a General Election called as soon as possible.
Waiting. Why are we waiting?
There is much evidence proving that asylum seekers are NOT responsible for all of society's ills. You just have to look at certain towns with little ethnic populations where there are problems with drugs, anti-social behaviour, long-term unemployment, crime and under-age pregnancy to see that it is a human issue and not the fault of genuinely needed people who need protection.
25000 applicants (not all granted) for asylum in 2008 when the UK's population is 60m. That is less than 0.05% of the population, so I truly believe our infrastructure can stretch to accommodate these people and we can maintain our stance of offering a new start to those truly persecuted in their own country.
Many people here fail to appreciate the benefits (ironically they know exactly how to claim them) of living in this country, but are quick to deny a tiny minority of less fortunate people the right to join us in our society.
This is of course an argument for unlimited immigration as the more people who arrive the larger the UK population becomes and so the more by your logic we can accomodate. After all 100,000 is "only" 0.15 pct of 70 million, and 125,000 is only 0.15 pct of 80 million! So keep 'em coming right?
The number that counts is population density i.e. persons per square mile. Britain is of a finite size and most people live in the South East. The place is clogging up. Sweden is two and a half times the size of Britain and has only 1/6 the population. Sweden has space for a growing population, Britain does not.
In addition your figure totally ignores all those asylum seekers who weren't granted asylum so simply went AWOL, and the 100,000 or so others who entered Britain illegally without any reference to the asylum system. Then there are those who came over on visas and over-stayed, those involved in marriage scams, those in real marriages, and of course EU migrants. These levels of immigration are incompatible with decent services and a decent quality of life, and and we need a government willing to face up to this fact.
Ross
Watch out readers. Women in Saudi cannot be hired as professional pilots or even crew members. This is false. There is only one case that is publicly known, in which one Saudi flying enthusiast got certified in Jordan, and later hired by Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal for his personal flights.
I urge the Independent to verify the little details prior to publishing.
How repressive does a regime have to be for a trade unionist to get asylum in Britain? The British trade union movement must take up his case and campaign for Yahya to be allowed to remain in safety.
Muslim society does not view adultery and illegitimate offspring as a means toward societal evolution, but rather as a sure way of destroying the basic fabric of any society; the family. Thankfully, this remains relatively rare in Saudi society, where the family remains a relatively strong institution, to the extent that cases such as that of the princess become newsworthy!
The fact is that spousal infidelity is a crime in Islamic Law because of the irrepairable damage it does to an entire family and to society as a whole; just as robbery, pedophilia, or spousal abuse are damaging crimes as well.
Consequently, I hope Britain does not intend to be a haven for all of Saudi Arabia's 'persecuted' felons!
The government should reverse this shocking decision and allow Yahya to stay.